The church of SM physics

  • Time is just a measure of motion, Huxley. And at the event horizon, there isn't any. Surely you must know your picture is wrong because it contains a massive contadiction. The infalling observer is said to see himself falling through the event horizon, whilst the outside observer doesn't see the infalling observer falling through the event horizon. Both stories can't be right. The issue is not fixed by fantasy physics where events occur in some never-never land beyond the end of time. But there again, the gullibility of supposedly intelligent people never ceases to surprise me.


    I realise this is tedious for some. But maybe worth engaging with John on this topic because some here might end up believing what he says and thus being very misinformed. There was a reason he got banned from stackexchange for poor quality answers on this topic!


    Time is just a measure of motion


    Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that. But there are multiple proper times for multiple different reference frames, so nothing "just" about it!


    And at the event horizon, there is not any.


    This is 100% false. You have shown how in an external to the black hole inertial reference frame all world lines (trajectories of objects) have an asymptote at the event horizon, where they never actually cross it. but, those same world lines, measured by their own (clock on traveller) proper time, pass through the event horizon in finite time. Saying that there is no time at the event horizon is false; there is perfectly good time, just that it is decoupled by an asymptote from external times.


    Surely you must know your picture is wrong because it contains a massive contadiction. The infalling observer is said to see himself falling through the event horizon, whilst the outside observer doesn't see the infalling observer falling through the event horizon. Both stories can't be right.


    This shows a lack of respect fro reality. Sure - relativistic physics is counter-intuitive and strange (some people, including me, would say wonderful). It is not contradictory once you accept its tenets - that time is relative and there is no global universal time. Both stories can be right - you can even trace light rays from the infalling object to the external observer and see how they get stretched asymptotically in external time to make both right. It is lazy not to go through that calculation: if you are capable. If you are not capable then you have no business asserting your minority viewpoint over 99.9% of people who have done it and understand how this physics works.

  • I realise this is tedious for some. But maybe worth engaging with John on this topic because some here might end up believing what he says and thus being very misinformed. There was a reason he got banned from stackexchange for poor quality answers on this topic!

    Ad-hominems do you no credit, Huxley. I was suspended from Stack Exchange because my answers were too good.


    Quote

    [Re "Time is just a measure of motion"] Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that. But there are multiple proper times for multiple different reference frames, so nothing "just" about it!

    I refute it thus: spacetime models space at all times. So there is no motion in spacetime. It is static. Motion is not defined by proper time in an inertial frame. Such things are abstract things. Do not try to define real things using abstract things that do not exist. Can you look up to the clear night sky and point out a reference frame? No. But I can point out the motion of a meteor. In similar vein I can hold my hands up a foot apart and show you the gap, the space between them. I can also waggle my hands and show you motion. I can do this because space and motion are real. They are empirical. Can you show me time? No, because time is not. Every time you try to show me time I will point out that all you've shown me is some cumulative measure of motion.


    Quote

    This is 100% false. You have shown how in an external to the black hole inertial reference frame all world lines (trajectories of objects) have an asymptote at the event horizon, where they never actually cross it. but, those same world lines, measured by their own (clock on traveller) proper time, pass through the event horizon in finite time. Saying that there is no time at the event horizon is false; there is perfectly good time, just that it is decoupled by an asymptote from external times.

    Can you look up to the clear night sky and point out a worldline? No. Because there are no worldlines. They do not exist. And because spacetime models space at all times, It is static, so objects do not move along their worldlines. As for your perfectly good time at the event horizon, let's see what Einstein had to say about that: “g44 = (1 – μ/2r / 1 + μ/2r)² vanishes for r = μ/2. This means that a clock kept at this place would go at the rate zero". Let's see now, we have a stopped clock. But you think there's a perfectly good time? And accuse me of coming up with something that's 100% false?


    Quote

    This shows a lack of respect for reality. Sure - relativistic physics is counter-intuitive and strange (some people, including me, would say wonderful). It is not contradictory once you accept its tenets - that time is relative and there is no global universal time. Both stories can be right - you can even trace light rays from the infalling object to the external observer and see how they get stretched asymptotically in external time to make both right. It is lazy not to go through that calculation: if you are capable. If you are not capable then you have no business asserting your minority viewpoint over 99.9% of people who have done it and understand how this physics works.

    I have total respect for reality. It isn't me being lazy, it's you, elevating abstract things above real things. And I'm sorry Huxley, but when you say you fall through the event horizon and I say you don't, there is a contradiction, as plain as day. Remember that I'm with Einstein. You're not. The general relativity you're talking about comes from people like Kip "I believe in time travel" Thorne, Roger "parallel antiverse" Penrose, and Lenny "the elephant is in two places at one" Susskind. They didn't read the Einstein digital papers. They appealed to Einstein's authority whilst flatly contradicting the guy. They did their own thing, and they made it up as they went along. I'm sorry Huxley, but the general relativity you believe in is an ersatz fantasy doppelganger popscience general relativity that has nothing to do with Einstein, and nothing to do with reality either.

  • Well, no. Proper time (for an inertial frame) measures causal dynamics in a spacetime. Motion is defined by that.


    This is a contradiction to logic. Time can only be measured/defined due to existing "real" motion not the other way round. No motion no time!


    We can always measure/detect motion without time as all our ancestor have done this without a clock. But of course only using time will give a real good model!


    Time as physicists use it is a mathematical mean to linearize the behavior of motion. Time is not a physical fact as most physical object to do follow time. We say time is a mathematical crutch to model the world.


    Information theory learns that time cannot be a global time arrow at least such an arrow will not be measurable. This has severe consequences as two independent inertial systems following the Einstein GER relation cannot be proven to really do it as the proof would need an absolute time arrow. (This is the same error SM makes with his sloppy formalism...)


    Wrong explanations are as good as shooting the cow at the bullet!


    But every thing changes if we switch to models with higher dimensions than 6.

  • DnG wrote: I still like the theory black hole as un-expanded space, ~

    Please tell me more, DnG. I've used the phrase "solid space" when talking about a black hole

    -----------------------------------


    I do not know the vocabulary to attempt it just yet. Even the statement I made is not exactly correct.

    Still learning.

  • JD: Ad-hominems


    My comments on JD's posts here have been critical, but not ad hominems. Specifically I am not saying his posts about are false because he is a bad poster, or for any other quality he possesses. The posts on stackexchange he posted and I referenced show his (wrong) view of GR as do his posts here. Relating those - since they are indeed related - is not an ad hominem comment.



    W: This is a contradiction to logic. Time can only be measured/defined due to existing "real" motion not the other way round. No motion no time!


    You imply there is no time in a vacuum. I disagree. More broadly, to some extent this is a philosophical point without observational or physical meaning.


    I would also probably agree in the following sense (which probably W does not agree). In a future GUT in which spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement we will have a very definite way in which quantum entanglement (of virtual particles) in a vacuum actually create the passage of time, as well as space.

  • If some nutjob anarchists knew how to convert matter into energy they'd send us back to the stone age

    We don't want nuclear bombs dirty and toxic.


    We are right to be afraid of nuclear bombs. They are dirty and toxic and there are too many nutjobs who want the fame of a terrorist. But, is a weapon of mass destruction via cold fusion possible? Is it even responsible to consider it in an open forum? These question go right to heart of our common quest. Yet, we shouldn't be manipulated by fear. If any of us believe it possible to develop a weapon of mass destruction from our comment quest, it shouldn't be discussed in an open forum.


    At the moment, I don't consider it possible. As far as I know, I have presented the only known stoichiometry for a cold fusion reaction in my patent applications. Stoichiometry doesn't lie, cold fusion is real. Based on the difference in mass of products and reactants and with a reasonable estimate of the amount of material involved the expected heat was 95.6 million BTU for a 2 minute reaction. However, the observed excess heat was 2871 BTU. NO BOMB. I am still trying to figure out what happened in the above example based on Santilli intermediate fusion patent application. However, it wasn't dirty or toxic as reported.


    Most people who dismiss fusion below the Lawson criterion, so it because they expect large amounts of energy and dirty (high energy radiation and radioactive products). To them it didn't have if it does have these characteristics.


    We have seen in the forum the examples of explosions by supposed LENR that create transmutation at the metal surface. EV create such craters on the witness plate. But little bombs are not big bombs. That said, I don't doubt the scary examples where people have died from explosion from experimental systems that in retrospect had explosive energy from a cold fusion system. Conduct your experiments carefully!


    The logic for not expecting a weapon of mass destruction is as follows. The fusion process as shown above produces something new that captures the expected energy. For those processes that follow the fusion to fission route the expectation is accelerated decay for radioactive material. W-waves increase the probability of beta decay by activation of radioactive isotopes. Further, w-waves unfreeze nuclear structure. A frozen object hit with a high energy projectile will fracture, but an unfrozen object has energy sufficient to rearrange. Further, the rearrangement by w-waves will accommodate large amounts of energy. (see patent data for evidence of the dissolution of iron to deuterium). The expectation for w-wave based fusion/ fission is a larger number of fission pathways than for projectile only fusion. These other pathways lead to fewer radioactive products and less energy release per reaction.


    So we have fusion but we don't mass conversion to energy, it goes somewhere else. The exception to that rule may be exposure of the unknown fusion products to a long temperature profile like the sun's corona.

  • So if as you say we don't have mass conversion to energy, where does the energy come from in LENR? And how do transmutation reactions occur without some mass - energy conversion?


    Good question.


    Element/isotope conversion => nucear reactions. Any attempt to get these without large amounts of energy release or input is really really difficult.

  • Thomas Minderle - a brief introduction to scalar physics.


    Abstract

    The forces of magnetism, electricity, and gravity are distortions of

    a single primordial field that permeates the universe and comprises

    the fabric of existence. Vorticity in this field gives rise to magnetic

    fields. Dynamic undulations give rise to electric fields. Compression

    or divergence gives rise to gravitational fields. When put into

    mathematical form, these relations reveal how electric and magnetic

    fields can be arranged to produce artificial gravity and many other

    exotic phenomena such as time distortion and the opening of portals

    into other dimensions.


  • This looks interesting. But dynamic undulations are light and vorticity gives rise to electromagnetic fields. Sadly I rather think the portals to other dimensions will make people dismiss everything he's saying, which is a pity. However I'll read this with interest. Thanks.

  • Good question.


    Element/isotope conversion => nucear reactions. Any attempt to get these without large amounts of energy release or input is really really difficult.


    It is probably mass to energy (electromagnetic waves) and back to mass. Something like pair production from a high enough energy gamma ray. If energy is not observed but should exist then some mass has taken it's place.

  • We are right to be afraid of nuclear bombs. They are dirty and toxic and there are too many nutjobs who want the fame of a terrorist. But, is a weapon of mass destruction via cold fusion possible? Is it even responsible to consider it in an open forum?


    Fleischmann thought a bomb is possible, and he wanted to keep the research secret for that reason.

  • Fleischmann thought a bomb is possible,


    Nobody can absolutely exclude this. But LENR produces no kinetic momentum and a only a tiny amount of radiation. Such a bomb like behavior must be based on heat production only. From what we know so far. The energy-transfer from LENR reactions is very delicate and slow. Thus without investing Billions into useless stuff I see no chance of an emerging LENR bomb.